Old Rating Lists

This forum is for general discussions and questions, including Collectors Corner and anything to do with Computer chess.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Old Rating Lists

Post by spacious_mind »

Here is a nice list from 1992 that I thought I would share since it also shows Mainframe computers, DOS programs and some rarities like Peri Epsilon.

This list came from this Spanish website below and was created in December 1992.

http://www.anacadigital.com/dedicados/listaelo1992.html

1992 Rating List

Image


I thought I'd share it for those of you who may have never seen it.

Best regards
Nick
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Post by Fernando »

I wonder how many elo points won those engines that appears as measured with 386 or 486 processors.

Fern
Festina Lente
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Fernando wrote:I wonder how many elo points won those engines that appears as measured with 386 or 486 processors.

Fern
I don't know, the list is a very interesting piece of history, but it misses a lot of good information as well.

Best regards
Nick
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Post by Fernando »

spacious_mind wrote:
Fernando wrote:I wonder how many elo points won those engines that appears as measured with 386 or 486 processors.

Fern
I don't know, the list is a very interesting piece of history, but it misses a lot of good information as well.

Best regards
I commented that because in those years I played some of those engines and I remember well my wins and losses, but now, when playing the same in a far faster computer, the experience is excruciating. As I told in a post some weeks ago, a program like chess 2150 which appears, in those old years, as a 1700 something engine, now running in my modest but lot faster computer than a 486 gave me a difficult job to get the point. I would say he is now at least 150-200 points stronger.

Fern
Festina Lente
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Fernando wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Fernando wrote:I wonder how many elo points won those engines that appears as measured with 386 or 486 processors.

Fern
I don't know, the list is a very interesting piece of history, but it misses a lot of good information as well.

Best regards
I commented that because in those years I played some of those engines and I remember well my wins and losses, but now, when playing the same in a far faster computer, the experience is excruciating. As I told in a post some weeks ago, a program like chess 2150 which appears, in those old years, as a 1700 something engine, now running in my modest but lot faster computer than a 486 gave me a difficult job to get the point. I would say he is now at least 150-200 points stronger.

Fern
Well you are right about that, there is improvement for sure. Here are a couple of tournament results that I played in 2012, which you should find interesting because some good oldie DOS programs played in it:

Image

In this first tournament I had slowed down Mysticum to what I thought was an equivalent speed of a 68020 with 40 MHz. Whether it was exactly an equivalent really does not matter, what was important for me was to find a setting that allows classic engine programs to play with dedicated computers and DOS programs.

As you can see it worked really well. Prodeo 1.6 from Ed Schroeder was the engine that was slowed down. You can also see that I used different DOS computers, an 80286-10 MHz, a 80386SX-16 MHz and a 486-133 MHz. It wasn't Chess Player 2150 that played but Chess Champion 2175 which was the follower of Chess Player 2150. Also notice I included out of interest an old Home computer, the Amstrad CPC 464 that is a Z80 with 4 MHz playing Cyrus which performed badly :)

Anyway W-Chess on the 386 won it ahead of Prodeo 1.6 and Chessmaster 2100. The dedicated computer Scysys Stratos from Juio Kaplan finished 4th.

Anway since this worked so well and I had so much fun with it, I then did another tournament:

Image

This one was even more exciting then the first with King 3.5 (Chessmaster 11 engine with Brucha (Witch) a configuration that I had created on CM9000 many years ago that I play with all the time cause I like it) winning it at the same equivalent speed of 68020-40 MHz with Mysticum. With this tournament I had even more fun because 5 programs that included 2 dedicated computers battled it out to the last round and the winner was only settled in the last round.

From this one you can see that Cyrus on a P100 performed at ELO 2047. But the Complete Chess System (Chris Whittington) playing on Commodore Amiga was disappointing.

Anyway I think this shows you as well that with improved hardware you can get better ELO's.

You are not wrong.

Best regards
Nick
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Post by Fernando »

spacious_mind wrote:
Fernando wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Fernando wrote:I wonder how many elo points won those engines that appears as measured with 386 or 486 processors.

Fern
I don't know, the list is a very interesting piece of history, but it misses a lot of good information as well.

Best regards
I commented that because in those years I played some of those engines and I remember well my wins and losses, but now, when playing the same in a far faster computer, the experience is excruciating. As I told in a post some weeks ago, a program like chess 2150 which appears, in those old years, as a 1700 something engine, now running in my modest but lot faster computer than a 486 gave me a difficult job to get the point. I would say he is now at least 150-200 points stronger.

Fern
Well you are right about that, there is improvement for sure. Here are a couple of tournament results that I played in 2012, which you should find interesting because some good oldie DOS programs played in it:

Image

In this first tournament I had slowed down Mysticum to what I thought was an equivalent speed of a 68020 with 40 MHz. Whether it was exactly an equivalent really does not matter, what was important for me was to find a setting that allows classic engine programs to play with dedicated computers and DOS programs.

As you can see it worked really well. Prodeo 1.6 from Ed Schroeder was the engine that was slowed down. You can also see that I used different DOS computers, an 80286-10 MHz, a 80386SX-16 MHz and a 486-133 MHz. It wasn't Chess Player 2150 that played but Chess Champion 2175 which was the follower of Chess Player 2150. Also notice I included out of interest an old Home computer, the Amstrad CPC 464 that is a Z80 with 4 MHz playing Cyrus which performed badly :)

Anyway W-Chess on the 386 won it ahead of Prodeo 1.6 and Chessmaster 2100. The dedicated computer Scysys Stratos from Juio Kaplan finished 4th.

Anway since this worked so well and I had so much fun with it, I then did another tournament:

Image

This one was even more exciting then the first with King 3.5 (Chessmaster 11 engine with Brucha (Witch) a configuration that I had created on CM9000 many years ago that I play with all the time cause I like it) winning it at the same equivalent speed of 68020-40 MHz with Mysticum. With this tournament I had even more fun because 5 programs that included 2 dedicated computers battled it out to the last round and the winner was only settled in the last round.

From this one you can see that Cyrus on a P100 performed at ELO 2047. But the Complete Chess System (Chris Whittington) playing on Commodore Amiga was disappointing.

Anyway I think this shows you as well that with improved hardware you can get better ELO's.

You are not wrong.

Best regards
Thanks for the post. Of course I already knew a faster comp gives better results to any program, BUT the point is HOW much better they becomes.
I have a 4 gig RAM with a dual core 3 MHz speed comp and certainly even antiques like some of those you mention gives a strong game at least until the middle game.
Of course there is another Elo rating that changes with time; ours...
At 66 years of age certainly my concentration capabilities has deteriorated, although at the same time experience is far greater than that of those years.
Festina Lente
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Fernando wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Fernando wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:
Fernando wrote:I wonder how many elo points won those engines that appears as measured with 386 or 486 processors.

Fern
I don't know, the list is a very interesting piece of history, but it misses a lot of good information as well.

Best regards
I commented that because in those years I played some of those engines and I remember well my wins and losses, but now, when playing the same in a far faster computer, the experience is excruciating. As I told in a post some weeks ago, a program like chess 2150 which appears, in those old years, as a 1700 something engine, now running in my modest but lot faster computer than a 486 gave me a difficult job to get the point. I would say he is now at least 150-200 points stronger.

Fern
Well you are right about that, there is improvement for sure. Here are a couple of tournament results that I played in 2012, which you should find interesting because some good oldie DOS programs played in it:

Image

In this first tournament I had slowed down Mysticum to what I thought was an equivalent speed of a 68020 with 40 MHz. Whether it was exactly an equivalent really does not matter, what was important for me was to find a setting that allows classic engine programs to play with dedicated computers and DOS programs.

As you can see it worked really well. Prodeo 1.6 from Ed Schroeder was the engine that was slowed down. You can also see that I used different DOS computers, an 80286-10 MHz, a 80386SX-16 MHz and a 486-133 MHz. It wasn't Chess Player 2150 that played but Chess Champion 2175 which was the follower of Chess Player 2150. Also notice I included out of interest an old Home computer, the Amstrad CPC 464 that is a Z80 with 4 MHz playing Cyrus which performed badly :)

Anyway W-Chess on the 386 won it ahead of Prodeo 1.6 and Chessmaster 2100. The dedicated computer Scysys Stratos from Juio Kaplan finished 4th.

Anway since this worked so well and I had so much fun with it, I then did another tournament:

Image

This one was even more exciting then the first with King 3.5 (Chessmaster 11 engine with Brucha (Witch) a configuration that I had created on CM9000 many years ago that I play with all the time cause I like it) winning it at the same equivalent speed of 68020-40 MHz with Mysticum. With this tournament I had even more fun because 5 programs that included 2 dedicated computers battled it out to the last round and the winner was only settled in the last round.

From this one you can see that Cyrus on a P100 performed at ELO 2047. But the Complete Chess System (Chris Whittington) playing on Commodore Amiga was disappointing.

Anyway I think this shows you as well that with improved hardware you can get better ELO's.

You are not wrong.

Best regards
Thanks for the post. Of course I already knew a faster comp gives better results to any program, BUT the point is HOW much better they becomes.
I have a 4 gig RAM with a dual core 3 MHz speed comp and certainly even antiques like some of those you mention gives a strong game at least until the middle game.
Of course there is another Elo rating that changes with time; ours...
At 66 years of age certainly my concentration capabilities has deteriorated, although at the same time experience is far greater than that of those years.
Yes I know what you are asking. But it is hard to know. Someone would have to for example take an Intel i7 empty and load DOS 6.22 onto it assuming you can still load DOS on them (which maybe you can't anymore) and then you can load these DOS programs at full speed and see where they really are today. DOSBox cannot give you that same experience as you don't really know the speed that they are playing through this emulator and you are not achieving max computer speed to allow you to compare with engines at the same speed on the same computer.

Best regards
Nick
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Post by Fernando »

D-Fend as a way to run DOS programs gives you some options in terms of RAM, processor speed or dedication, etc.
It is a wonderful program, lot better that the usual dosbox.
Give it a try IF you does not know it already.

Fern
Festina Lente
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Fernando wrote:D-Fend as a way to run DOS programs gives you some options in terms of RAM, processor speed or dedication, etc.
It is a wonderful program, lot better that the usual dosbox.
Give it a try IF you does not know it already.

Fern
Thanks I will give it a try. I have never used it.

Regards
Nick
User avatar
Fluppio
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:53 pm

Post by Fluppio »

Very nice list Nick. Some dedicated were never mentioned before in a list, like Bogol 5.0, TSB IV etc.

But the most astonishing is No. 127!! :lol:

Playmate Bunny regards
Peter
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Fluppio wrote:Very nice list Nick. Some dedicated were never mentioned before in a list, like Bogol 5.0, TSB IV etc.

But the most astonishing is No. 127!! :lol:

Playmate Bunny regards
Peter
Hi Peter,

Thanks, I thought it was worth sharing. btw.. you are doing a fantastic job with your blog. Really nice reports and photos.

Best regards
Nick
TracySMiller
Full Member
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:24 am
Location: Kingsport, TN

Post by TracySMiller »

That's a great list. Back when there were still a few humans who could beat the best AI at chess!

I like how they mixed the different formats of chess playing-entities. Notice how the PC chess programs are 1,000 ELO points weaker than they are now!

Looks like the best PC chess was Gideon. That was the forerunner to the REBEL software, right? The second place PC chess was The King, which was later used in the Chessmaster series, if I'm not mistaken.

I recently downloaded D-Fend and all those old DOS chess programs from Ed Schroeder's wonderful site. I'm looking forward to matching some of them against my Dedicated units once I finish the current tournament.
User avatar
BenRedic
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:29 am
Location: Norway

Post by BenRedic »

spacious_mind wrote:Yes I know what you are asking. But it is hard to know. Someone would have to for example take an Intel i7 empty and load DOS 6.22 onto it assuming you can still load DOS on them (which maybe you can't anymore)
Sure you can. Install FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org/) on a USB stick and fill it with DOS oldies. Boot from the USB stick, and you have DOS running full speed on a modern computer.
Thank you for an interesting game.
User avatar
BenRedic
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:29 am
Location: Norway

Post by BenRedic »

Fernando wrote:I wonder how many elo points won those engines that appears as measured with 386 or 486 processors.
As long as we are talking about comparative strength of chess programs running on anything Pentium and down you may find this old clip interesting:

Image

Source: Computer Chess Reports http://www.chesscomputeruk.com/CCR_Volu ... dum_01.pdf
Thank you for an interesting game.
Post Reply